Now, just because of his dedication to ST DOES NOT mean he'll come back to the organization that treated him like crap. I mean really, what Snyder and Greg did to him was really awful. Lavar wanted to be the next D. Green (playing with one team whole career) and he even took a major pay cut to help the Skins out. We did him dirty, very very dirty IMO. I love the guy, I will always support Lavar and he'll always be a Skin to me. If he does come back, it will be just to retire from the NFL.

Any comments he made regarding Snyder was right on target because we all see how much Snyder really cares about people.. (See beer prices @ Fedex Field)

Maybe Snyder and Angelos should get together and think about what they are doing to their fanbase.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:Um...what I said was Lavar "torpedoed the bridge." The bridge is a metaphor for the ability to go back to where you came.

Gee thanks, where would we be without your brilliant insight and ability to dumb things down for us lesser folk.

Actually you should have said "my post" not "us" since I only explained what a bridge metaphor was in response to the post that didn't quote what I said correctly. To the rest, whatever, don't care. I'm not interesting in insulting each other's posts on this. Here is my view, you can like it or not.

By calling Danny a "hypocrite" and a "liar" he made it personal. In my 20 years in management and consulting, I know that's a line you don't cross. LaVar can say whatever he wants about what he said, what they agreed to and so forth.

But Danny cannot manage an organization without demanding personal respect and if he accepts this he is telling current and future negotiators that personal respect isn't required. It would be stupid and it would severely limit his ability to manage his organization.

And Danny's statements during the LaVar case show he does in fact get it. The only way LaVar comes back is with a public statement retracting the PERSONAL attacks on Danny. He in no way has to take back the Skins "owed" him the money.

Ironic we're arguing these sides as on this site we can blast each other's posts to smithereens. We cannot personally attack each other unless we go to Smack. That is exactly the line LaVar crossed and Danny didn't.

I am interested in a quote though that you know that LaVar was owed the money by Danny. I have no idea who said what in the negotiations. Can you show me how you know that?

Groucho: Man does not control his own fate. The women in his life do that for him

Proverb: Failure is not falling down. Failure is not getting up again

Twain: A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way

Kazoo, Danny was wrong for his treatment of Lavar brutha. It was all made public back than when it was time for re-negotiations. I'm not saying LA was right for going public with his statements but it is a fact that the organization does indeed try to screw players when it's time for the money to be distributed. We all know that Shawn 'Silver' Springs is the next one to go because of this, watch how it plays out.

666 and I love those "what if's" (sarcasm?), so what if Lavar had gotten paid and stayed a Skin? What if Greg let him play more to learn that "hard" system? What if he was here and didn't ride that motorcycle and got torn up?

Lavar will always be my guy because he made history as a Skin, he ended Aikman's career and for that I am sooooo grateful!!!

KazooSkinsFan wrote:Actually you should have said "my post" not "us" since I only explained what a bridge metaphor was in response to the post that didn't quote what I said correctly. To the rest, whatever, don't care. I'm not interesting in insulting each other's posts on this. Here is my view, you can like it or not.

Yes, your condescension would cetainly seem to indicate as much.

But Danny cannot manage an organization without demanding personal respect and if he accepts this he is telling current and future negotiators that personal respect isn't required. It would be stupid and it would severely limit his ability to manage his organization.

Demanding respect and earning it are two totally different things. Sure he can demand it, doesn't mean that people have to give it. And the repercussions are what they are. I've seen enough examples of people that have left the organization due to their lack of respect for the way things are done, to know that respect is not something that there's a whole lot of around Redskin Park... not now... and not in the last five years that I've been close enough to the team to know the difference.

Whether you want to admit the reputation that this orgnization has forged under Snyder or not, seems of little consequence to whether or not that reputation exists outside the burgndy and gold faithful.

And Danny's statements during the LaVar case show he does in fact get it.

Actually, to me they just show that with the right amount of spin and propoganda, you can make the general public believe just about anything.

The only way LaVar comes back is with a public statement retracting the PERSONAL attacks on Danny.

I don't remember ever stating to the contrary. I agree... but how is that the same as 'no way Snyder would give (him) the chance' ...

... so is it no way as ou stated first, or only one way as you stated second? I agree that there might only be one way... that's definitively more than NO WAYS.

And if it did happen, wouldn't that just categorically PROVE that Lavar is a man who bleeds burgundy and gold like few others?

I am interested in a quote though that you know that LaVar was owed the money by Danny. I have no idea who said what in the negotiations. Can you show me how you know that?

Owed what money? What specifically are you talking about? The contract clause that was removed and never paid?

They were actually going to arbitration to settle it...

As expected, the rift between linebacker LaVar Arrington and the Washington Redskins will have to be settled by an arbitrator. Arrington, who signed a nine-year, $68 million contract in December, contends the deal with the Redskins, which was put together quickly because of a salary-cap related deadline is missing a $6.5 million signing bonus for the year 2006.

They DIDN'T end up going to actual arbitration and settled before the hearing, but I'm not sure how it can possibly be contended that Lavar didn't think he was owed the money.

The result was a settlement over the bonus with terms that favored the Redskins. They agreed to a deal that would make Arrington a free agent or net him a $3.25 million bonus if he made the Pro Bowl in two of the next four seasons. Obviously, he didn't and didn't see any of the bonus, but I'm really not sure why the Redskins would add anything at all if they didn't have any culpability in the matter, or feel that the arbitrator would see it that way.

And despite all of that, Lavar STILL redoes his contract one last time to let the Redskins out of paying him a huge chunk of money. A move so bold, that some questioned whether or not Snyder had circumvented the cap to get a player to agree to such a massive forfeiture of funds.

On the subject of Arrington, his situation last week is indicative of how some league owners talk a good game, and then fold when it's time to stand behind their words. The Redskins were aided in their quest to squeeze under the salary cap last week when Arrington elected to forfeit $4.4 million in deferred signing bonus money which was part of his 2003 contract extension. The move raised a lot of eyebrows around the league.

Several NFL teams had claimed that the Redskins could not mathematically get under the salary cap if it was set in the $94 million range, which it initially was (at $94.5 million), and that Washington needed a cap level in the $98 million range to be in compliance with the spending limit. And, presto, suddenly the team gained $4.4 million in cap relief (you do the math on the difference between $98 million and $94 million) when Arrington forfeited the deferred bonus money.

While no one was publicly willing to charge the Redskins with attempting to circumvent the cap, there were plenty of whispers that owner Dan Snyder had conspired to get the money to Arrington by surreptitious means.

Some owners contended they would request that commissioner Paul Tagliabue investigate the Arrington forfeiture in an attempt to ascertain if Snyder has played fast-and-loose with the cap rules, which could merit a fine and possible loss of draft choices. Such charges are difficult to prove, of course, but there have been three cases under the current system in which teams were sanctioned for violating the cap rules. Of course, when push came to shove, the whispered charges against Snyder and the Redskins were just bombast, and no team has officially sought an investigation of the Arrington matter.

I'm not for one second saying that things weren't said. But spin is spin.

Both guys are smart enough to see that for what it is and find some common ground one day in my opinion. And tht's all I was trying to say. You can say ''no way Snyder would give (him) the chance' all you like. I disagree, and i'm pretty sure if you asked Brian Mitchell... he'd tell you from first hand experience that it's certainly possible.

Mitchell said he has put behind him the animosity he's had toward big-spending Redskins owner Dan Snyder, who cut Mitchell five years ago to make room for an aging Deion Sanders.

"I started here. I played 10 years here. My home is here. I never wanted to leave Washington. I wanted to retire as a Redskin way back," Mitchell told WTEM radio. "Things changed. I left upset and with an attitude, but you get over things, and I made a phone call to Dan Snyder and expressed what I wanted to do, and he agreed with it."

LaVar and His agent both signed the contract. Danny S. (or his reps) gave them a copy to review & sign.

Who is to blame for that?

Either way LaVar is still one of my favorite Redskins of all time, he got us all through some tough years with his aggressive play. Seeing LaVar at Sean funeral in tears got me choked up. I just wish we could have seen both LaVar & Sean on the same field for more that the year & a half we did. That would have been truly special.

BH, I agree with you that it was a two-way street that lead to LaVar leaving the Redskins. Neither the team nor the player emerged as a good guy.

However, in light of how Snyder responded in the wake of Sean's death, this is really inappropriate imho.

BossHog wrote:Snyder cares about NOTHING but money, so he should actually like that...

The way Snyder, and the Redskins in general, handled Sean's death, funeral, and the fund for his daughter, has really impressed me. If Snyder really was only about the money, he wouldn't have flown down the entire Redskins organization to Sean's funeral, wouldn't have established a fund for his daughter, etc.

PulpExposure wrote:BH, I agree with you that it was a two-way street that lead to LaVar leaving the Redskins. Neither the team nor the player emerged as a good guy.

However, in light of how Snyder responded in the wake of Sean's death, this is really inappropriate imho.

BossHog wrote:Snyder cares about NOTHING but money, so he should actually like that...

The way Snyder, and the Redskins in general, handled Sean's death, funeral, and the fund for his daughter, has really impressed me. If Snyder really was only about the money, he wouldn't have flown down the entire Redskins organization to Sean's funeral, wouldn't have established a fund for his daughter, etc.

Pulp, I'll have to disagree with you on that one man. The way Snyder handled ST's death and everything involved has NOTHING to do with the way he treats his players. What Snyder is doing isn't business related, this is something personal and he knows very well the public (us fans) would crucify his tail if he didn't respond properly to ST's death. Taking the team down and setting up that fund for little Sean is something he had to do. I love him for it, don't get me wrong brutha, but he doesn't treat his players good in the long run.

SkinsHead56.. regarding your comment about "Lavar and His agent both signed the contract"... I hear you, and if that was indeed the case, Lavar woulda never agreed to take that cut to help out the Skins. You gotta look at it from both ends, true, but I 100% sided with Lavar on this one. Ask B. Mitch how D. Snyder treats people man. B. Mitch should have STAYED a Skins forever too.

langleyparkjoe wrote:Pulp, I'll have to disagree with you on that one man. The way Snyder handled ST's death and everything involved has NOTHING to do with the way he treats his players. What Snyder is doing isn't business related, this is something personal and he knows very well the public (us fans) would crucify his tail if he didn't respond properly to ST's death. Taking the team down and setting up that fund for little Sean is something he had to do. I love him for it, don't get me wrong brutha, but he doesn't treat his players good in the long run.

I disagree wholeheartedly...

Snyder felt in his heart that this was the right thing to do. He could hardly speak about Sean after his death. He barely was able to compose himself at the press conference after returning from Miami. He had to tell Pete Taylor during the funeral that he couldn't get up on the stage to speak as he was scheduled to.

Snyder is hurt and him flying the organization down was beautiful. It was a beautiful show of support for the family and a great gesture for those who aren't multimillionaires on the staff to pay their final respects.

I've hated Snyder and wished he'd go but I have nothing but the utmost respect for his recent actions.

Look guys. I do not care anymore who was right and who was wrong in the Lavar and Snyder battle. I just think they could bury the hatchet and move on. I just would like to see Lavar retired as a Redskin or play as a Redskin again. He was not a bad guy. In fact he still helps the poor people.

Lavar has a facility which houses foster children. He also has a restaraunt in the DC area.

Frankly I think the argument between him and Snyder is petty. Millionaires arguing with Billionaires and therefore there relationship could be mended if one were to swallow there pride.

skinsfan#33 wrote:Wait a second! Cutting Lavar was not a front office blunder. They got cap relief for a player they no longer thought was worth the money they were paying him.

Funny how people only remember that the Redskins cut him for cap relief and not that lavar NEEDLESSLY re-did his contract completely to allow them to do so. He lost millions doing so. Millions that he could have just kept and screwed the Redskins on the contract that they had already agreed to years before.

Without him doing so... we'd have had millions and millions more in dead cap AND WOULDN'T LIKELY HAVE BEEN ABLE TO JETTISON THE CONTRACT.

I didn't say his cutting was a mistake, but a resigning would just be the typical dan snyder move of singing washed up vets and expecting them to perform like they have in there prime or expecting more than they have ever done. I love Lavar. We need quality people like he was on this roster, and year after year our trades are jokes. We gave up a 3rd round pick for duckett a year ago and he ran the ball like twice. What was that guys name the Pats got for a 3rd rounder this year? See my point. We never want to give it up when a good opportuniey actually presents itself.

I'm not saying it was you guys but when Lavar got cut with us, alot of people said they were glad. That was of course at the time when we had those other guys and everyone said Lavar was too wild and did his own thing. Like I said previously my bruthas and sistas, DON'T get carried away by Lavar's very touching tribute to ST. I personally would love to see Lavar retire as a Skin but I really really don't want him to apologize to Snyder for anything. Snyder needs to man-up and accept responsibility for his mistake.

Anyways, that's just how I feel about the Lavar thing. As for Danny doing these things, nice gesture and I'm very proud of our organization for lending that support to the Taylor family.